OBJECTIVES: To compare ischaemic lesions predicted by different CT perfusion (CTP) post-processing techniques and validate CTP lesions compared with final lesion size in stroke patients. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent CT, CTP and CT angiography. Quantitative values and colour maps were calculated using least mean square deconvolution (LMSD), maximum slope (MS) and conventional singular value decomposition deconvolution (SVDD) algorithms. Quantitative results, core/penumbra lesion sizes and Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECTS) were compared among the algorithms; lesion sizes and ASPECTS were compared with final lesions on follow-up MRI + MRA or CT + CTA as a reference standard, accounting for recanalisation status. RESULTS: Differences in quantitative values and lesion sizes were statistically significant, but therapeutic decisions based on ASPECTS and core/penumbra ratios would have been the same in all cases. CTP lesion sizes were highly predictive of final infarct size: Coefficients of determination (R (2)) for CTP versus follow-up lesion sizes in the recanalisation group were 0.87, 0.82 and 0.61 (P < 0.001) for LMSD, MS and SVDD, respectively, and 0.88, 0.87 and 0.76 (P < 0.001), respectively, in the non-recanalisation group. CONCLUSIONS: Lesions on CT perfusion are highly predictive of final infarct. Different CTP post-processing algorithms usually lead to the same clinical decision, but for assessing lesion size, LMSD and MS appear superior to SVDD. KEY POINTS: Following an acute stroke, CT perfusion imaging can help predict lesion evolution. Delay-insensitive deconvolution and maximum slope approach are superior to delay-sensitive deconvolution regarding accuracy. Different CT perfusion post-processing algorithms usually lead to the same clinical decision. CT perfusion offers new insights into the evolution of stroke.
OBJECTIVES: To compare ischaemic lesions predicted by different CT perfusion (CTP) post-processing techniques and validate CTP lesions compared with final lesion size in strokepatients. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent CT, CTP and CT angiography. Quantitative values and colour maps were calculated using least mean square deconvolution (LMSD), maximum slope (MS) and conventional singular value decomposition deconvolution (SVDD) algorithms. Quantitative results, core/penumbra lesion sizes and Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECTS) were compared among the algorithms; lesion sizes and ASPECTS were compared with final lesions on follow-up MRI + MRA or CT + CTA as a reference standard, accounting for recanalisation status. RESULTS: Differences in quantitative values and lesion sizes were statistically significant, but therapeutic decisions based on ASPECTS and core/penumbra ratios would have been the same in all cases. CTP lesion sizes were highly predictive of final infarct size: Coefficients of determination (R (2)) for CTP versus follow-up lesion sizes in the recanalisation group were 0.87, 0.82 and 0.61 (P < 0.001) for LMSD, MS and SVDD, respectively, and 0.88, 0.87 and 0.76 (P < 0.001), respectively, in the non-recanalisation group. CONCLUSIONS: Lesions on CT perfusion are highly predictive of final infarct. Different CTP post-processing algorithms usually lead to the same clinical decision, but for assessing lesion size, LMSD and MS appear superior to SVDD. KEY POINTS: Following an acute stroke, CT perfusion imaging can help predict lesion evolution. Delay-insensitive deconvolution and maximum slope approach are superior to delay-sensitive deconvolution regarding accuracy. Different CT perfusion post-processing algorithms usually lead to the same clinical decision. CT perfusion offers new insights into the evolution of stroke.
Authors: James D Eastwood; Michael H Lev; Tarek Azhari; Ting-Yim Lee; Daniel P Barboriak; David M Delong; Clemens Fitzek; Michael Herzau; Max Wintermark; Reto Meuli; David Brazier; James M Provenzale Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan; Hugo J W L Aerts; Bernard Bendriem; Claus Bendtsen; Ronald Boellaard; John M Boone; Patricia E Cole; James J Conklin; Gary S Dorfman; Pamela S Douglas; Willy Eidsaunet; Cathy Elsinger; Richard A Frank; Constantine Gatsonis; Maryellen L Giger; Sandeep N Gupta; David Gustafson; Otto S Hoekstra; Edward F Jackson; Lisa Karam; Gary J Kelloff; Paul E Kinahan; Geoffrey McLennan; Colin G Miller; P David Mozley; Keith E Muller; Rick Patt; David Raunig; Mark Rosen; Haren Rupani; Lawrence H Schwartz; Barry A Siegel; A Gregory Sorensen; Richard L Wahl; John C Waterton; Walter Wolf; Gudrun Zahlmann; Brian Zimmerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Max Wintermark; Nancy J Fischbein; Wade S Smith; Nerissa U Ko; Marcel Quist; William P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Julia Hopyan; Anthony Ciarallo; Dar Dowlatshahi; Peter Howard; Verity John; Robert Yeung; Liying Zhang; Jisung Kim; Genevieve MacFarlane; Ting-Yim Lee; Richard I Aviv Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pamela W Schaefer; Elizabeth R Barak; Shahmir Kamalian; Leila Rezai Gharai; Lee Schwamm; Ramon Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joris M Niesten; Irene C van der Schaaf; Alan J Riordan; Hugo W A M de Jong; Alexander D Horsch; Daniel Eijspaart; Ewoud J Smit; Willem P T M Mali; Birgitta K Velthuis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Clinton D Morgan; Marcus Stephens; Scott L Zuckerman; Magarya S Waitara; Peter J Morone; Michael C Dewan; J Mocco Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Mina Park; Kyung-Eun Kim; Na-Young Shin; Seung-Koo Lee; Soo Mee Lim; Dongbeom Song; Ji Hoe Heo; Jin Woo Kim; Se Won Oh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joris M Niesten; Irene C van der Schaaf; Alan J Riordan; Hugo W A M de Jong; Willem P T M Mali; Birgitta K Velthuis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Charlotte H P Cremers; Pieter C Vos; Irene C van der Schaaf; Birgitta K Velthuis; Mervyn D I Vergouwen; Gabriel J E Rinkel; Jan Willem Dankbaar Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 2.804